Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Official Trent Richardson Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    You might be, but you're not someone that I've seen fill game threads with snide comments directed at Trent, for no good reason other than to poke.
    I mean, in fairness, I have been known to make snide comments directed towards Trent. In game threads. Sometimes to poke

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

      Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
      Except even your cherry picked stats still make trent look like crap.
      Well, to be honest, I'm not all that worried over the opinion of someone that shows themselves to be a flaming hypocrite within just a few sentences, nor someone who tries to argue 2.7ypc is a good game beacuse of the "eye test." So if those are the hurdles I need to jump over, I'll decline.

      Random strangers opinions over the internet isn't going to cause me to lose any sleep, I can assure you of that. So don't bruise your back patting it too hard.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

        This is the main reason i'd take Boom over Trent, besides the superior stats. Turn on the film, and watch Boom hit the hole, and then watch Trent hit the hole. Boom hits it with explosiveness and speed, and Trent hits it with no power, speed, or explosiveness to speak of.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
          This is the main reason i'd take Boom over Trent, besides the superior stats. Turn on the film, and watch Boom hit the hole, and then watch Trent hit the hole. Boom hits it with explosiveness and speed, and Trent hits it with no power, speed, or explosiveness to speak of.
          He used to. That is the big question. What has happened. And can it be fixed.
          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            And there it is. This is my problem with your stance --- it has never even seemed like you've taken one iota of effort to actually get a good bearing on this guy at all and yet you've developed in your mind the utmost resolve that he sucks and has never had what it takes, and that I take big issue with.

            Your snapshot of this guy is basically since he joined the Colts, and therefore, it is a limited snapshot.

            And even *you* have to admit that it's been a less-than-stellar situation for every back involved here. This team has borked the running game from top to bottom. You cannot even begin to argue that any back has come here and blossomed. What most of you deem as "success" in Colts running-game terms would qualify as mediocre production at best on most other teams and that may be largely because we've been conditioned by a terrible run game for basically the last decade.

            Trent has also been playing with injuries throughout his stint here, particularly in his legs, but has rarely not made himself available despite those injuries, nor has he complained or made excuses.

            This all plays into your view of him.

            I just said it yesterday --- go do a quick Google search of his highlights (that's about all we really have) but after you're watching that, you have *got* to admit that this guy has special qualities *in him* that he's capable of. Beyond what Boom or DBrown and even Ahmad can do. Here are a few just to get started:

            Here's his Alabama highlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlwXtk90Ndk

            And here's his Cleveland highlights:


            His stint in Cleveland was a productive one, even if some of his numbers weren't amazing. Andrew Luck had a few non-amazing stat categories his rookie year, too. But there were plays that Trent produced where you went, "Wow, there are less than 5 guys in the league capable of making that move."

            Right now, those qualities are absolutely being quelled. I don't know why. Is it mental? Is it physical? Is it because our system sucks, or that he just doesn't matchup well with this particular system? I'm a big believer in "fit"... and it's entirely possible that we just aren't the right fit for him. The thing I take away is that the guy we see in those videos is nothing like what we've seen. Why? I can't figure it out. I do question very much if this coaching staff is maximizing his abilities, and based off all the other evidence in our running game, it's a likely factor... these guys suck at putting together a successful, consistent running game.

            But no, I absolutely do not agree with you that he's shown extreme flaws historically. He at one point in time showed some very, very good traits. Those traits stopped being evident in his tenure here with the Colts. The whole question is why, and can it be fixed. If he's a out of the league in a year or two, that is a damn shame, because we all would have been robbed of a helluva experience watching this guy at his full potential.
            I'll tell ya what. Obviously those are highlights, but you wonder what happened for him to stop producing even half of that.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              I'll tell ya what. Obviously those are highlights, but you wonder what happened for him to stop producing even half of that.
              I know! This has been my point... he *has* special stuff in him... so what in the world happened? Is it self-inflicted? Has our system/staff just ruined this guy? I really, honestly have no idea. I just want to know --- can this get fixed. I had faith in Trent... I haven't had much faith in this staff in regards to our rushing offense. So that right there should tell you where I lean more in terms of "blame"... either way, it could be too late already to fix Trent. I hope not. But I know the business side of things, they are always looking for fall guys in crappy situations like this, and Trent is gonna be that guy. And our running offense will continue to suck, but dudes will have kept their jobs. Which again... I hope not. The line coach and running back coach both need a serious evaluation, and Pep needs a good grilling as to why we're in the situation we're in. It's basically unacceptable. The good thing for us is... the rest of our team (I feel) is very good, so it mostly masks our horrendous rushing system.
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-14-2015, 04:36 PM.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                I know! This has been my point... he *has* special stuff in him... so what in the world happened? Is it self-inflicted? Has our system/staff just ruined this guy? I really, honestly have no idea. I just want to know --- can this get fixed. I had faith in Trent... I haven't had much faith in this staff in regards to our rushing offense. So that right there should tell you where I lean more in terms of "blame"... either way, it could be too late already to fix Trent. I hope not. But I know the business side of things, they are always looking for fall guys in crappy situations like this, and Trent is gonna be that guy. And our running offense will continue to suck, but dudes will have kept their jobs. Which again... I hope not. The line coach and running back coach both need a serious evaluation, and Pep needs a good grilling as to why we're in the situation we're in.
                In defense of this staff.... its always a red flag when Cleveland trades him for a first rounder that was likely to be at the end of the first round the year after they took him #3 overall...

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                  Cleveland is also a dumpster fire of an organization that routinely makes very poor decisions. Look what they did with the pick they got from us. It's just one in a long line of completey asinine decisions.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    Your snapshot of this guy is basically since he joined the Colts, and therefore, it is a limited snapshot.
                    A limited snapshot would be his first few games as a Colt. Arguably, it could be the entirety of his first season with the Colts (that was only a partial season itself). Arguing a limited snapshot after a partial season, playoffs, a complete offseason, training camp, preseason games, and a full season into another round of playoffs seems to be pushing the boundaries of the phrase considerably.

                    What he did the season before all of that becomes the outlier, not the norm. And as has been said, what happened to make Cleveland willing to deal him after that first season? IMHO they saw something that troubled them and cut their losses quickly. Yes it could be that they were idiots making a stupid move, but that gets harder to believe when you see what (little) Trent has done here and factor that into context of the big picture.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                      If Trent is not active this Sunday he is not a Colt next season. He has been humiliated and that can't be fixed here.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        He used to. That is the big question. What has happened. And can it be fixed.
                        He's a running back. Bodies can only take so many hits. His took a lot in Alabama. And then a lot more in Cleveland. It's sad, but I honestly don't think his body was made for a long term career. Any player ever will tell you how rough it is on a RB.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          I know! This has been my point... he *has* special stuff in him... so what in the world happened? Is it self-inflicted? Has our system/staff just ruined this guy? I really, honestly have no idea. I just want to know --- can this get fixed. I had faith in Trent... I haven't had much faith in this staff in regards to our rushing offense. So that right there should tell you where I lean more in terms of "blame"... either way, it could be too late already to fix Trent. I hope not. But I know the business side of things, they are always looking for fall guys in crappy situations like this, and Trent is gonna be that guy. And our running offense will continue to suck, but dudes will have kept their jobs. Which again... I hope not. The line coach and running back coach both need a serious evaluation, and Pep needs a good grilling as to why we're in the situation we're in. It's basically unacceptable. The good thing for us is... the rest of our team (I feel) is very good, so it mostly masks our horrendous rushing system.
                          Kid, not trying to start an argument, but you literally blamed everyone, except Trent, for the run game. Maybe ALL of our running backs just suck and the system is fine? I seem to remember Bradshaw not doing to shabby (without looking up his stats) with this same system. Does anyone know if this is the same coaching(line/running back) staff that was here Ballard's rookie year?


                          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                            I'm fairly certain it is the same staff. I blame more than just Trent... not just Trent, that's the difference between us. This system has never gotten off the ground, period. There are people up and down that chain that need dealt with. Trent was not the player he is now when he got here. I'd say it was all Trent's fault if everyone else was completely fine in this system, but that has never been the case. Ahmad has success because he runs so violently he can blast his way through those holes but he also blasts his body in the process and never lasts long.
                            I think they've done a good job finding running backs honestly... I really like the backs they've rolled through here. But that line is so fn bad... and the play calls have left so much to be desired.
                            That said the last two games have been an improvement in both categories.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-14-2015, 08:35 PM.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                              I still don't understand what the excuse is when every back we have had on the roster with Trent, from Donald Brown to Ahmad Bradshaw, and Boom, have all out performed him, yet the issue is the run scheme and not Trent. Look our run game isn't very good you are correct. But its gotten better every time we have put someone in their for Trent.

                              For comparison sakes just to prove my point:

                              Bradshaw: 4.7 YPC
                              Donald Brown: 5.3 YPC
                              Boom Herron: 4.5 YPC

                              Trent Richardson: 3.3 YPC

                              That isn't a good look for Trent. At some point you have to just admit Trent isn't getting the job done or close to it, and the other backs on the roster are.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                                Trent is generally the main back and those guys were all the offspeed backs. It could be that Trent isn't doing well. It could also be just a difference in usage. I know that when Trent gets benched, the guy whi replaces him almost always sees a drop in production, which is what tells me the main back in this system is essentially set up to fail. Boom busted out the big 2.7 last week, and he got way more carries than Trent usually averaged. And that was behind a visibly better o line in the two weeks Boom has started. Donald Brown did the same thing last year.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-14-2015, 08:45 PM.
                                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X